Rebeka Ubera, a member of EH Bildu, was the first to speak. He has asked Uriarte and Arévalo to explain “an instruction that does not comply with all legality”, he reminded them that there is no decree that gathers this program, nor public call, even though the teachers have to go to the companies that are nominated on a list to provide services.

“How is it possible that the centres are invoicing the services offered to companies without VAT and with the government’s NIF?” asked, “how is it possible that in the guidelines prepared by the Basque Government for schools there are expressions such as ‘we should avoid mentioning that the visits and the definition of the projects are financed’. The teachers, as if they were commercial, are making visits to the companies and doing jobs that do not belong to them, and that the schools and teachers are pressured to do so and that the work for the companies is unfair competition for other market companies that can perform these jobs (we have to remember that the centres offer companies a 25% discount on the bill, which then the government pays as a subsidy 25%).

Councillor Cristina Uriarte, for her part, has been short. He points out that the productive sector of the CAPV must innovate, that Vocational Training is a fundamental agent in this innovation and that the centers must proactively offer their collaboration.

Jorge Arévalo, on the other hand, has spent a lot of time and has touched on many issues. In an article in ARGIA, the first said that "things have been poorly expressed", but with the answers given by the reader you will have to draw conclusions.

“What new knowledge has the professor acquired of designing a website for a company?”

Teachers charge companies for the provision of services and jobs (with a 25% discount). According to Arévalo, offering services is not only supporting companies, but also assumes that teachers get knowledge to transmit it in the classroom. Ubera responds with a real example of this program: “If a company signs an agreement with the center for the professor to design the web, what new competencies and knowledge has it acquired for the later transmission of the faculty in the center?” On the other hand, “are you sure that all the services offered by TKgune are technological services?” he says.

Regarding a program that does not have a legal decree, Arévalo mentioned the general laws that promote innovation and that schools collaborate with companies to obtain knowledge. Ubera has replied that the TKgune programme does not have “legal handles” and that from the moment public money is channelled to companies, a public appeal should be made which is not made. “I’ve read articles from legislation and I haven’t found the TKgune program, it doesn’t appear.” Ubera tells him that he understands collaboration differently because the general laws cited by Arévalo encourage collaboration: “For you it is to collaborate to offer services, and for us it is to share, to learn from one another, without there being economic benefits in return. Is it invoicing agreements between schools and companies?” Ubera has told Arévalo and Uriarte that all programs need a legal grip, but Arévalo has stated that, as they are doing now, they have enough legal grip to “work experimentally”, “and if something needs to be changed in the future,” they will change it.

“From the moment you invoices, you jump to another field”

José Ramón Becerra, from Elkarrekin Podemos, also believes that it should not be billed: “From the moment you invoices, you launch to another field, to an alternative financial system.”

With regard to the possibility of issuing an invoice without VAT, Arévalo clarified that educational establishments providing services do not have to collect VAT. Rebeka Ubera replied that education is exempt from VAT, yes, but that all the services offered by this programme are not services related to education.

He pointed out that the centers get funding based on these services and that there is also a minimum number of visits that the centers must fulfill and that the teachers are pressured, “there is no pressure, we don’t force anyone, it is voluntary”. “We do not encourage anyone to do so, we encourage them; we plan with schools the number of visits and projects. We understand that they are reasonable objectives and the centres participate voluntarily.”

Read the ARGIA article phrase: “A Basque Government programme encourages Vocational Training teachers to sell business projects per company.” Arévalo says that the faculty does not sell projects, “they put the center’s resources at the service of the company and also the faculty reinvents itself and earns in knowledge”. Becerra reminds Arévalo that it is precisely a bill that reflects the sale of a service, that is, that the teachers are selling. In addition, the fact that the owner of the service provided is later the company, and not the educational center, reflects that “Vocational Training depends on the productive system”, according to Becerra. Arévalo replied that while in the dictionary the bill means that, that is not the spirit of this program. Arévalo sees the payment for jobs very well. “Where’s the problem? If the centers can self-finance, it’s good news.”

“If there are companies that offer applied innovation, we will retire”

Instead of 100% of the project, teachers charge the company 75%, with a grant of 25% from the Basque Government, and “thanks to this hook the school sells the project at a price lower than what would be sold on the market,” says the article from ARGIA. After reading the phrase, Arévalo said that it is not a hook, but a programme that offers “specific solutions”, that innovation projects can be financed by the administration and is therefore transparent, that this 25% reduction does not need any specific rules. “We understand that this 25% is the value of knowledge and learning that returns to the center when making the project.” Arévalo also does not see unfair competition, as “87% of the companies visited never participated in an innovative project.” In other words, there are no companies engaged in applied innovation and, therefore, there is no unfair competition. However, Ubera has set the example above: “Designing a website to a company is not a unfair competition for the surrounding companies that can design the website?” “We don’t do unfair competences and if there are companies that offer applied innovation we will retire,” said Arévalo.

He has read more excerpts from ARGIA, among them the professors as a commercial and the Basque Government awards the program with public money, because the more projects he sells, the more financial and personal resources the center will receive. TKgune has a budget of EUR 1,400,000 for this programme. But Arévalo doesn't see it this way. “We do not reward anything, we promote innovation in companies. Teachers and schools do not sell projects, try to encourage and convince them. They do not go to companies as commercials, they go to a school as teachers to carry out shared projects that benefit both parties.” Regarding the works that do not belong to the teaching staff, Arévalo has insisted that “it is the task of the teachers”, remembering the aforementioned laws.

“Funding for this programme remains inkognita”

In Ubera’s words, “you have said that the financing of the TKgune programme is made from Lehendakaritza, but that does not appear in the Lehendakaritza matches. Funding for this programme remains inkognita”. For whom is the 25% subsidy that does not appear anywhere and does not have a public call? It is defined as an aid to the company and we know how to do it…”.

Arévalo has also referred to this passage of ARGIA: “It is to be assumed that if visits and projects are an important source of income for the centre, the risk of the teachers’ forces concentrating on them, as well as the risk of increasing competition for these projects. Teachers, instead of teaching, run the risk of working more and more for companies.” Arévalo says no, that he takes control and that there is no such risk, because school hours are not reduced at all. At ARGIA, we emphasize that “the center that achieves the goals, in addition to the financial incentives, gets hours, professors that are released for these jobs”. Becerra asks another question: “Of these 1,400,000 public euros, how much has it gone to the concerted centres?”

Arévalo has acknowledged that the phrase in the instruction sent to schools and denounced in ARGIA “is not very well written,” explains the instruction: “We should avoid mentioning that visits and project definition are funded. If we let them see that the center receives money for visiting, rather than as an agent approaching help, they may see us as an agent interested in visiting.” Arévalo has pointed out that companies receive many visits advising, “then consultancies that have no benefit, and we want them to see us as something different, so they don’t think we come to sell a product that serves them nothing.” That's what the instruction phrase says.

The instruction also says: “Special emphasis must be placed on the fact that the main driver of the project is the Basque Government, the Presidency.” This is where Cristina Uriarte has spoken, who has confirmed that the programme is coordinated by Lehendakaritza, who is the one who marks the seal. Ubera found it curious that it was a coordinated programme from Lehendakaritza and that lehendakari, Iñigo Urkullu, said that he had not known this programme so far.

Asked about the criteria followed by the list of companies that are sent to schools, which will be visited by the teachers, Arévalo explained that it is the result of a diagnosis made from the European Union.

Rebeka Ubera makes it clear: From the Department of Vocational Training of the Basque Government what is being done is a “botch” and “unfortunately this action is very normalised in this area. You are playing with public administration and with public money.”

“Is the goal good training or a cheap workforce?”

Rebeka Ubera and José Ramón Becerra have been the only ones in the Committee on Education of the Basque Parliament who have criticised Arévalo's explanations. In Becerra’s words, “innovation yes, but how and for what? It is clear, for the benefit of the government, because it saves on R & D, but to whom? Is the aim good training or to obtain cheap labour and very cheap R & D? Replacing this innovation with vocational training centres, instead of developing an innovation programme for companies, can lead to problems.”